Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Denis Barbier wrote:
> In this thread we were told to change the French translation because
> Apache maintainers did not like its layout. I will come back to this
> issue below, but here is a better example of the problem I want to
> exhibit.
Here is the references to the thread. If you like to bring up discussion
in this way let people read everything and not only your summary that
takes points from different messages in wrong order and does not give any
idea on how the thread evolved during the time.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00121.html
The first post to the mailing list is the result of the only mail in which
i was asking Michael Bramer how to behave in the situation in which
translators do not respect the layout of the original description.
> It is time to go back to the Apache description. Maintainers are
> unhappy with the French translation provided by the DDTP.
Yes we are since in the first place we asked nicely to change the layout
back to the original one (as it was before this translation) and then you
jumped in with some fancy reasons and even after 3/4 attempts to explain
to you why the layout has to be changed back you were not able to
understand them, as well you did not understand that there is a procedure
for requesting such a change. (all this has been discussed in the thread
and let's fly over the french part with some sarcastic "Anyone has some
Valium"? in which we were removed from the To: and Cc:)
> >
> > ok, the ddtp db has this english/french apache description:
> > | # Package(s): apache
> > | # Package priority: task
> > | # Package prioritize: 50
> > | Description: Versatile, high-performance HTTP server
> > | The most popular server in the world, Apache features a modular
> > | design and supports dynamic selection of extension modules at runtime.
> > | Some of its strong points are its range of possible customization,
> > | dynamic adjustment of the number of server processes, and a whole
> > | range of available modules including many authentication mechanisms,
> > | server-parsed HTML, server-side includes, access control, CERN httpd
> > | metafiles emulation, proxy caching, etc. Apache also supports multiple
> > | virtual homing.
> > | .
> > | Separate Debian packages are available for PHP, mod_perl, Java
> > | Servlet support, Apache-SSL, and other common extensions. More
> > | information is available at http://www.apache.org/.
>
>
> > | Description-fr: Serveur HTTP polyvalent haute performance
> > | Serveur le plus populaire du monde, Apache est caracterise par sa conception
> > | modulaire et autorise la selection dynamique des modules d'extension lors de
> > | l'execution.
> > | Quelques-uns de ses points forts sont l'etendue des personnalisations
> > | possibles, l'ajustement dynamique du nombre de processus du serveur, un
> > | eventail complet de modules disponibles, incluant :
> > | - plusieurs mecanismes d'authentification ;
> > | - des analyseurs de serveurs de HTML ;
> > | - des inclusions cote serveur ;
> > | - un controle d'acces ;
> > | - une emulation de metafichiers httpd CERN ;
> > | - un cache proxy, etc.
> > | Apache supporte aussi les sites internes virtuels multiples.
> > | .
> > | Des paquets Debian separes sont disponibles pour le PHP, mod_perl, le
> > | support Servlet Java, Apache-SSL et d'autres extensions habituelles. Plus
> > | d'informations sont disponibles sur http://www.apache.org/.
>
> There is a comma separated list of items in English, and an itemized
> list in French.
> The point is that from a typographical point of view (in French) the
> preferred format for a long list of items is an itemized list; a comma
> separated list is considered as bad looking, this is certainly why
> the translator chose this format. I do not know English rules about
> this issue, and thus cannot tell if original description is right
> or not.
you already received an answer to this here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00140.html
> Now Apache maintainers are telling us that they chose another layout
> and we are bound to it.
Yes because the official maintainer is responsable for the description of
a package. Including the layout and this was told already in the same
message above.
> This is stupid, our constraints are different,
> so I do not see why we could not adopt another format if it is more
> adequate for our own language.
File a wishlist bug as you were told already:
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting
> Of course if there are good reasons
> to promote a given layout, you can give them[1], but telling that
> ``this is done that way in English so you must adopt this format
> too'' is insane.
You still were not able to explain us why the previous translation had the
same layout than.... (still in the same message as before)
> In conclusion, please do not try to impose your views on how
> translations should look like in your package.
There are policies for description. DDTP as developers have to respect
them. but i guess it is not your case since according to your post you do
not contribute to any of them.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00166.html
> You have to make sure that translations are up to date and correct, but
> when you edit translated files yourself, you are most of the times
> making translator's life harder without any gain for our end users.
Why do you think we did ask kindly to have the french layout alligned with
all the others? and we did not changed it ourself? Because we did not want
to change the contents of the description even for a typo but having its
layout alligned with the others.
Fabio
- --
Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol
"We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues
http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp00004.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+wHtMhCzbekR3nhgRAge7AKCe93QMhBxqpN7elcn0pTm2f6B2mACfRpgh
a7jwKGGMUMdnk06s+EsbXso=
=53nH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: